Talk:Freedom-class littoral combat ship

European design concept

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/January/Pages/OutsourcingUSDefenseNationalSecurityImplications.aspx The competing designs in the Navy’s littoral combat ships competition are based on European and Australian concepts.

ISTR something about a fast Italian boat being used as the basis for the Freedom hull type, but there is nothing in the current article about it. Hcobb (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Antiship missiles

Antiship missiles are not all cruise missiles, not all cruise missiles are antiship missiles.
Where did the fable get started that ships just need to defend themselves against cruise missiles: e.g. the Tomahawk antiship missile (TASM), which is a cruise missile?
Ships need to defend themselves against ballistic missiles, or course, even short-range ones like the Scud.
Also, the Maverick missile can be used as an antiship missile, and it is not a cruise missile. It is a high-speed air-to-surface missile In fact, the P-3 Orion carries Mavericks specifically as antiship missiles, and the F/A-18 Hornet, F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, Panavia Tornado, and F-4 Phantom II can carry Mavericks as antiship missiles.
There are Russian, French, Norwegian, and other antiship missiles that are not cruise missiles, and warships need to be able to defend themselves against these, too, with short-range missile (e.g. Sea Sparrow) and rapid-fire cannon (e.g Phalanx) systems. It doesn't always take something like the Standard Missile SM-3.
98.67.108.12 (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Preceding / Succeeding Inconsistencys

According to the Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigate article, the Perry Class is succeeded by the Independence and Freedom Classes. But according to the Freedom Class article, the Freedom is not a successor to any other class, and the Independence Class article does not say anything at all on the subject.User:retrograde62 04:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.161.147 (talk)

This might be because the Navy considers both the Freedom and Independence members of the Littoral Combat Ship class.TeeTylerToe (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

RIM-116 launcher - Mk. 49 mention?

I think it should be mentioned that the Freedom class uses the 21 cell Mk. 49 Launcher. The Independence class article mentions that it's class uses the 11 cell seaRAM that has the Phalanx's independent tracking and firing system allowing it to operate autonomously with only supplied power. I think it's worth mentioning that the Freedom uses the Mk. 49 shared by many other navy ships.TeeTylerToe (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Usage of proper noun "Navy"

(Edit: I edited this since first posting it, to make the point clearer. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC) ) "Navy" should be capitalized when used as a proper noun to refer to an institution (the United States Navy). This is the generally accepted usage on Wikipedia, after initial usage of the full term "United States Navy", as an abbreviated version of the same proper noun. (look at almost any Wikipedia page on a U.S. Navy vessel). It wasn't even consistently changed on this page; some instances of "Navy" were allowed to stand while others were edited out. Editing a few instances of it where it is clear from context that it is referring to the institution is inappropriate, especially since it wasn't even consistently removed from the article. (Note that this is consistent with MOS:MILTERMS, which states:

The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page.

See also MOS:INSTITUTIONS, which is applicable and contains a similar example ("the State Department" when in context referring to the United States Department of State). Because this involves a military institution which is capitalized, it should be capitalized. Check any of the citations provided in this article; you will see that they use "Navy", capitalized, when used to represent the institution, "United States Navy." I will note that MOS:MILTERMS says that a reference to a type of military unit should not be capitalized, but that's not what is being discussed. This is not being used to refer to a fleet of vessels; it is being used as the name of a military institution.

Unless you intend to edit the whole of Wikipedia on U.S. naval vessels to get rid of the common use of capitalized "Navy", please don't start doing it to random pages. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for an excellent discussion of this point. I point out the Specialized Style Fallacy in my defense. And yes, I would prefer to edit the entire project to get it right. My inability to do so is not relevant. But, and returning to what is relevant, you make an excellent argument, and I think you have changed my mind. At least let me think about it. Thank you again. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Total ships completed

There seems to some disagreement about the value to use for the "Total ships completed" field. The usage guide for the {{Infobox ship begin}} template suggests that this field should contain the "Number of ships that have been or were built." For commissioned warships the "Total ships completed" field is usually the total number of ships in the class that have been commissioned (currently 6), while "Total ships active" is that number minus the number no longer active. However, it looks like User:Oscarm18 favors a larger number (9). It is not clear to me how that number was determined (maybe the number that have been launched?) However, ship construction typically continues well after a ship is launched. In modular ship construction it is not uncommon for major superstructure elements to be installed after the ship has been launched. For that matter, with warships (or at least U.S. warships) construction can continue even after the builder delivers the ship to the Navy — often government furnished equipment is installed by the Navy (or another contractor) after the ship is delivered. It is only when the ship is commissioned that the warship is considered completed (although the U.S. has had a few instances where the Navy has commissioned a ship with every intention to address flaws with some components later). —RP88 ^(talk) 01:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Proposed LCS Freedom class Naval Strike Missiles Launcher Arrangement.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Navy Plans to Retire Troubled $4.5 Billion Warships After Less Than a Decade

Time Magazine: April 8, 2022 12:43 AM EDT Would anyone like to add this to the main article? jwalling (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC) CNN source 2003:E7:B718:EF3A:69DA:C032:5107:83B7 (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

References